A. Defendant C, who had a certified judicial scrivener’s office director and a successful bidder consultation, was issued the Defendant B’s identification card, personal seal stamp, passbook, etc. with the Defendant A, a co-born with the Defendant A, for the purpose of obtaining a loan as if the Plaintiff sold the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, together with Nonparty E, who was the actual disposal authority of the building D at Guri-si (hereinafter “instant real estate No. 1”) and the building Nos. 1408 of Guri-si (hereinafter “the instant real estate No. 2”).

B. After that, on September 17, 2015, Defendant A borrowed KRW 185,00,000 from the Plaintiff as collateral for purchasing the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), and Defendant B borrowed KRW 185,00,000 from the Plaintiff as collateral for purchasing the instant real estate on December 24, 2015, while offering the said real estate as collateral from the Plaintiff on December 24, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant second lending agreement”) C.

At the time of the conclusion of the first and second lending agreement, Nonparty F was residing in the first real estate of this case as a person with a right to lease on a deposit basis, and Nonparty G resided in the second real estate of this case as a lessee after filing a move-in report.

Nevertheless, on September 17, 2015, Defendant C and Defendant A stated “no corresponding matter” and “rental deposit” as the lessee’s “Lessee” and “rental deposit” on the instant real estate No. 1, and Defendant C and Defendant B stated “no corresponding matter” in the lease certificate as of November 23, 2015 on the instant real estate No. 2, and submitted the said lease certificate and the relevant loan documents to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff believed that it was genuine, and concluded a loan agreement with Defendant A and B, and paid the loans to Defendant A and B.

The Plaintiff’s loans to the District Public Prosecutor’s Office.